1950s recording question...

[rockinokie]

I'm in the process of setting up my home studio at the moment and the first several projects will be with bands I am in as well as groups that I am friends with. This cirlce of friends/musicians are from a scene covering several genres of roots music. ...hillbilly, rockabilly, garage, early rnb etc...

Most of these bands including the ones I am in are incapable of recording instruments seperately. ...its just not the way it is done and even if I wanted to do it that way I would not be able to convince anyone else to do it.

A recording friend of mine is saying I am gonna have a big problem with bleed thru especially on the drums for live recording but for some reason I seriously don't think RCA, Capitol, and of course Sun did not have drum and vocal booths.

So I guess my question is, how did they get that great sound back then? I'm sure there is a lot to it but I just find it interesting and any tips couple really help me out in the near future. Thanks!

 

[RocStar]

Great sound?
It's all relative I guess.
Have you ever done sound in a live venue?
That's how I treat these kinds of sessions.
Just make sure you get your control room isolated and all should be well.
I have a few gobos around to create little isolation areas. Useful stuff. As long as you can hear properly in the control room you should be able to get what you're after. Sometimes the performances you capture recording all together are far superior to tracking.

 

[RAMI]

The recordings of the 50's might have had a great sound FOR THEIR TIME. But, you're looking at it through rose-colored specks if you think getting a mix where you can barely hear the drums and bass a "great sound".

Also, 90% of that "great sound" was the talent. People tend to forget that when they think they can re-produce the same sound in their home studios. The other 10% is knowing what to listen for and then using that to make decisioons on mic placement, instrument placement, what type of mics to use, etc....."Great sound" doesn't just "happen" simply because you're all playing live in a room.

 

[leddy]

With all due respect to Rami, if you have a sound in your head then go for it. Though what he said about talent is very true.

I record jazz. No overdubs. No isolation. Don't fight the bleed. It can be done great with just a stereo pair if you need to. It's all about placing the instruments around the mics. Instead of moving faders, you move the source until it's right.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

The recordings of the 50's might have had a great sound FOR THEIR TIME. But, you're looking at it through rose-colored specks if you think getting a mix where you can barely hear the drums and bass a "great sound".

Sounds like somebody hasn't heard the right 50's recordings.

And "great sound" is not directly tied to bass and drums taking your head off. Great sound means it pleases you to listen to it. Keeping in mind that sound pleasing you may manifest as urges to dance/make-out/headbang/mosh/etc.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for doo wop, but those are great recordings by any standard. As good as what they were making in the 70's and 90's? No. But they kick the crap out of most recordings of the last 10 years.

As for the original question of how they got that great sound: Insanely talented session players with fierce competition to take their spot if they couldn't hack it.

Bleed: Close micing wasn't even mature as a technique in the 50's. There was nothing but bleed.

 

[RAMI]

With all due respect to Rami, if you have a sound in your head then go for it. Though what he said about talent is very true.

I record jazz. No overdubs. No isolation. Don't fight the bleed. It can be done great with just a stereo pair if you need to. It's all about placing the instruments around the mics. Instead of moving faders, you move the source until it's right.

Sounds like somebody hasn't heard the right 50's recordings.

And "great sound" is not directly tied to bass and drums taking your head off. Great sound means it pleases you to listen to it.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for doo wop, but those are great recordings by any standard. As good as what they were making in the 70's and 90's? No. But they kick the crap out of most recordings of the last 10 years.

As for the original question of how they got that great sound: Insanely talented session players with fierce competition to take their spot if they couldn't hack it.

Bleed: Close micing wasn't even mature as a technique in the 50's. There was nothing but bleed.

No offense taken from either of you.

I realize that a lot of people listen to old Beatles, or stuff from the 50's and say "Wow! Those old recordings are great". And I love a lot of stuff from every era. But nobody's going to convince me that most of those recordings sound great....The only ingredient they have that makes them SEEM like great recordings is "nostalgia".

But, yes, the performances and songs were great.

 

[rockinokie]

...well I thoroughly enjoy listening to those old records along with a lot of other folks out there. I guess I don't know how to explain it. ...Maybe I just like "lo-fi" music. I think if I brought any of the greats back to life in the prime of their recording span and had them record today, I would not enjoy the new product like I enjoy the old recordings.

What Rami said about talent IS very true.

...and thanks Leddy. I guess if I have a sound I am after then only I can figure it out.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

But nobody's going to convince me that most of those recordings sound great....The only ingredient they have that makes them SEEM like great recordings is "nostalgia".

But, yes, the performances and songs were great.

You contradicted yourself in back-to-back sentences.

How can the only great "ingredient" be nostalgia if the performances and songs are great? The performances and songs are the most important ingredients of a recording!

How can nostalgia influence me on recordings from the 50's anyway? I wasn't even born until the late 70's.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

One more thing:

Rami, you realise that those recordings from the 50's were accurate, right? Those drummers and bass players actually were playing in a way that intentionally pushed them back. If you were in the room, that is what it would have sounded like. It was a production style made to sound like natural instruments with an emphasis on singing.

 

[RAMI]

You contradicted yourself in back-to-back sentences.

How can the only great "ingredient" be nostalgia if the performances and songs are great? The performances and songs are the most important ingredients of a recording!

Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "only". But I still stand by the jist of what I meant to say, which I think is clear.

How can nostalgia influence me on recordings from the 50's anyway? I wasn't even born until the late 70's.

I wasn't around for the early Beatles, either. But, the music can still transport you to another time, weather you were there or not. If "nostalgia" isn't the right word, then I apologize. But, playing a game of semantics notwithstanding, I think my point isn't that hard to grasp, even if you totally disagree.

"Please Please Me", while a great song and performance, is not a great "sounding" recording, in my opinion. If the only ingredients one needs to qualify something as a great recording is a good song and performance, then that's fine. Personally, I think you can have a great song and performance while still having a bad recording.

 

[leddy]

You contradicted yourself in back-to-back sentences.

How can the only great "ingredient" be nostalgia if the performances and songs are great? The performances and songs are the most important ingredients of a recording!

How can nostalgia influence me on recordings from the 50's anyway? I wasn't even born until the late 70's.

Rami's point that a lot of those older recordings are not great-sounding recordings is certainly valid. I would just add that there are some that do sound great. There are too many different recordings to generalize so much anyway.

It might just be the distinctive sound of a particular label that someone likes. The early Blue Note recordings certainly were unique. Or Motown, for the obvious examples (though Motown was mostly the 60's).

In any event, chasing after a particular sound is a great way to learn and grow your recording talent.

 

[RAMI]

There are too many different recordings to generalize so much anyway.

Very true.

Don't get me wrong, I love stuff from every era, including most of these tunes that I would label "not good" recordings. But I love them for other reasons, and those other reasons make the songs sound GREAT to me. But if we're just talking about the SOUND of the actual recordings, (not musical style, emotion, performance, or arrangement), most of those recordings don't stand up to something made 10 years later, 20 years later, or now.

Do I like most music made in the last 30 years??? No. I still mostly listen to stuff from the 60's and 70's. And a lot of those are horrible recordings. But I love them anyway, just like you guys do.

 

[leddy]

Going back to the orignal question, what are some 50's records you like the sound of?

Studios in the 50's only had mono or stereo to choose from. Higher track counts began in the 60's.

I would probably get a pair of ribbon mics, a good preamp and a decent 1/4" tape deck. Or maybe a pair of dynamic mics. Two SM57's and a Tascam 22 could be what you need. You could put that together for a few hundred bucks.

If you are recording digital, I would lean towards ribbon mics.

 

[RAMI]

Going back to the orignal question,

Yes, I apologize for side-tracking this with my personal opinion. It's irrelevant to the original question.

Regardless of my opinion, I'm sure re-producing the sound of those classic tunes would be very challenging.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

So a recording has to be "more" than reality to be great? Because since the advent of multi-tracks, compressors, gates, amplified instruments and all that, it has been. A recording that accurately captures a natural performance can't be great? I can't agree with that.

If the only ingredients one needs to qualify something as a great recording is a good song and performance, then that's fine.

Scary to think that "we" need "them" way more than "they" need "us", but it's true.

 

[rockinokie]

Yeah. The bass and drums were typically low in the mix. "Neo" rockabillys try to mimic this today (unless you are the Stray Cats). I play in a couple different bands and occasionally play with different drummers. We always absolutely hate having a hard hitting drummer. ...especially with the kick. ...ugh or even worse, playing at a venue who typically hosts punk and metal bands that have a sound man that likes to mic everything on the drumset including the kick.

Seriously, while there are a lot of really bad recordings from that era, there ARE some really good ones. The fact that I have yet to hear someone recreate that sound when there are in fact people in every city across the world trying to find it makes me believe there is something to it. I know a lot of talented folks... they must still be working on that other 10%.

 

[RAMI]

So a recording has to be "more" than reality to be great? Because since the advent of multi-tracks, compressors, gates, amplified instruments and all that, it has been. A recording that accurately captures a natural performance can't be great? I can't agree with that.

I can't agree with that, either. Which is why I never said it, and have no idea how you got to that conclusion. I'm saying that the sound of the recordings aren't great and you're jumping to the conclusion that I think it's because everyone was playing in the same room??? That's peculiar.

For all I know, there might be many recordings that I think sound great that were also recorded with everyone playing at the same time. But, since I didn't read the credits, I wouldn't have known how it was recorded. In fact, I don't even know HOW 90% of the stuff I've ever heard was recorded, so it's irrelevant.

To be honest, I couldn't tell you why I don't think those earlier recordings don't sound good to me. They just don't.

 

[RAMI]

Scary to think that "we" need "them" way more than "they" need "us", but it's true.

Then why not just record everything into a Panasonic tape recorder? As long as the performance is good, why waste your time trying to get a good sound?

 

[Chibi Nappa]

...ugh or even worse, playing at a venue who typically hosts punk and metal bands that have a sound man that likes to mic everything on the drumset including the kick.

HA HA HA HA!!! I work sound at a bar that does metal ALL THE TIME...and one night one of the bands decided to go totally rockabilly. I think they were missing a guitar player or something... Anyway, they go acoustic guitar, upright bass, stripped-down drum kit. The whole thing. I'm micing them up. I'm seeing what they're doing. All I need on the drums is something hovering two feet above the snare out in front a tiny bit. This dude who writes for a music magazine was watching from the crowd and goes all "big shot" on me telling me I'm micing it all wrong and tries to lobby with the band to get me to close-mic. I totally blow him off and the set kicks ass. Then I close mic the next metal band and take the room's head off. It was great.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I can't agree with that, either. Which is why I never said it, and have no idea how you got to that conclusion. I'm saying that the sound of the recordings aren't great and you're jumping to the conclusion that I think it's because everyone was playing in the same room??? That's peculiar.

For all I know, there might be many recordings that I think sound great that were also recorded with everyone playing at the same time.

Being in the same room or recording at the same time has nothing to do with it. The 50's sound is the lack of compressors, gates, amps, eqs, editing, multi-tracking, etc. It's natural. We never hear "natural" anymore, because even a live performance has all of that stuff. Unless you are playing in your garage without a soundman or something. But in that case you still aren't hearing "natural" because the room sucks.

But if you take a great band, put them in a great room, and record them without sound reinforcement... That is the 50's sound.